ECONOMIC POLICY OF BRITISH INDIA The economy of India under the British Raj describes the economy of India

during the years of the British Raj from the 1850s to 1947. During this period, the Indian economy essentially remained stagnant, growing at the same rate (1%) as the population. The fall of the Rupee After its victory in the Franco-Prussian War (187071), Germany extracted a huge indemnity from France of 200,000,000, and then moved to join Britain on a gold standard for currency. France, the US and other industrialising countries followed Germany in adopting a gold standard throughout the 1870s. At the same time, countries, such as Japan, which did not have the necessary access to gold or those, such as India, which were subject to imperial policies that determined that they did not move to a gold standard, remained mostly on a silver standard. A huge divide between silver-based and gold-based economies resulted. The worst affected were economies with a silver standard that traded mainly with economies with a gold standard. With discovery of more and more silver reserves, those currencies based on gold continued to rise in value and those based on silver were declining due to demonetisation of silver. For India which carried out most of its trade with gold based countries, especially Britain, the impact of this shift was profound. As the price of silver continued to fall, so too did the exchange value of the rupee, when measured against sterling. The absence of industrialisation during the colonial period Historians have questioned why India did not undergo industrialisation in the nineteenth century in the way that Britain did. In the seventeenth century, India was a relatively urbanised and commercialised nation with a buoyant export trade, devoted largely to cotton textiles, but also including silk, spices, and rice. By the end of the century, India was the worlds main producer of cotton textiles and had a substantial export trade to Britain, as well as many other European countries, via the East India Company. Yet as British cotton industry underwent a technological revolution in the late eighteenth century, the Indian industry stagnated, and industrialisation in India was delayed until the twentieth century. Historians have suggested that this was because India was still a largely agricultural nation with low wages levels. In Britain, wages were high, so cotton producers had the incentive to invent and purchase expensive new labour-saving technologies. In India, by contrast, wages levels were low, so producers preferred to increase output by hiring more workers rather than investing in technology. The Depression The worldwide Great Depression of 1929 had a small direct impact on traditional India, with relatively little impact on the modern secondary sector. The government did little to alleviate distress, and was focused mostly on shipping gold to Britain. The worst consequences involved deflation, which increased the burden of the debt on villagers while lowering the cost of living. In terms of volume of total economic output, there was no decline between 1929 and 1934. Falling prices for jute (and also wheat) hurt larger growers. The worst hit sector was jute, based in Bengal, which was an important element in overseas trade; it had prospered in the 1920s but was hard hit in the 1930s. In terms of employment, there was some decline, while agriculture and small-scale industry also exhibited gains. The most successful new industry was sugar, which had meteoric growth in the 1930s.

Railways British investors built a modern railway system in the late 19th centuryit was the fourth largest in the world and was renowned for quality of construction and service. The government was supportive, realising its value for military use in case of another rebellion, as well as its value for economic growth. All the funding and management came from private British companies. The railways at first were privately owned and operated, and run by British administrators, engineers and skilled craftsmen. At first, only the unskilled workers were Indians. A plan for a rail system in India was first put forward in 1832. A few short lines were built in the 1830s, but they did not interconnect. 1844, Governor-General Lord Hardinge allowed private entrepreneurs to set up a rail system in India. The John Company (and later the colonial government) encouraged new railway companies backed by private investors under a scheme that would provide land and guarantee an annual return of up to five percent during the initial years of operation. The companies were to build and operate the lines under a 99-year lease, with the government having the option to buy them earlier. Two new railway companies, Great Indian Peninsular Railway (GIPR) and East Indian Railway (EIR) began in 185354 to construct and operate lines near Bombay and Calcutta. In 1853, the first passenger train service was inaugurated between Bori Bunder in Bombay and Thane. Covering a distance of 34 kilometres (21 mi). The first passenger railway line in North India between Allahabad and Kanpur opened in 1859. In 1854 Governor-General Lord Dalhousie formulated a plan to construct a network of trunk lines connecting the principal regions of India. Encouraged by the government guarantees, investment flowed in and a series of new rail companies were established, leading to rapid expansion of the rail system in India. Soon several large princely states built their own rail systems and the network spread to the regions that became the modern-day states of Assam, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. The route mileage of this network increased from 1,349 kilometres (838 mi) in 1860 to 25,495 kilometres (15,842 mi) in 1880 mostly radiating inland from the three major port cities of Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta. Most of the railway construction was done by Indian companies supervised by British engineers. The system was heavily built, in terms of sturdy tracks and strong bridges. By 1900 India had a full range of rail services with diverse ownership and management, operating on broad, metre and narrow gauge networks. In 1900 the government took over the GIPR network, while the company continued to manage it. In the First World War, the railways were used to transport troops and grains to the ports of Bombay and Karachi en route to Britain, Mesopotamia, and East Africa. With shipments of equipment and parts from Britain curtailed, maintenance became much more difficult; critical workers entered the army; workshops were converted to making artillery; some locomotives and cars were shipped to the Middle East. The railways could barely keep up with the increased demand. By the end of the war, the railways had deteriorated badly. In 1923, both GIPR and EIR were nationalised. Headrick argues that until the 1930s, both the Raj lines and the private companies hired only European supervisors, civil engineers, and even operating personnel, such as locomotive engineers. The government's Stores Policy required that bids on railway contracts be made to the India Office in London, shutting out most Indian firms. The railway companies purchased most of their hardware and parts in Britain. There were railway

maintenance workshops in India, but they were rarely allowed to manufacture or repair locomotives. TISCO steel could not obtain orders for rails until the 1920s. The Second World War severely crippled the railways as rolling stock was diverted to the Middle East, and the railway workshops were converted into munitions workshops. India provides an example of the British Empire pouring its money and expertise into a very well built system designed for military purposes after the Mutiny of 1857, and with the hope that it would stimulate industry. The system was overbuilt and too expensive for the small amount of freight traffic it carried. However, it did capture the imagination of the Indians, who saw their railways as the symbol of an industrial modernitybut one that was not realised until after Independence. Christensen (1996) looks at of colonial purpose, local needs, capital, service, and private-versus-public interests. He concludes that making the railways a creature of the state hindered success because railway expenses had to go through the same time-consuming and political budgeting process as did all other state expenses. Railway costs could therefore not be tailored to the timely needs of the railways or their passengers. After independence in 1947, forty-two separate railway systems, including thirty-two lines owned by the former Indian princely states, were amalgamated to form a single unit named the Indian Railways. The existing rail networks were abandoned in favour of zones in 1951 and a total of six zones came into being in 1952. Agriculture and industry The Indian economy grew at about 1% per year from 1880 to 1920, and the population also grew at 1%. The result was, on average. no long-term change in income levels. Agriculture was still dominant, with most peasants at the subsistence level. Extensive irrigation systems were built, providing an impetus for growing cash crops for export and for raw materials for Indian industry, especially jute, cotton, sugarcane, coffee and tea. The entrepreneur Jamsetji Tata (18391904) began his industrial career in 1877 with the Central India Spinning, Weaving, and Manufacturing Company in Bombay. While other Indian mills produced cheap coarse yarn (and later cloth) using local short-staple cotton and cheap machinery imported from Britain, Tata did much better by importing expensive longer-stapled cotton from Egypt and buying more complex ring-spindle machinery from the United States to spin finer yarn that could compete with imports from Britain. In the 1890s, Tata launched plans to expand into heavy industry using Indian funding. The Raj did not provide capital, but aware of Britain's declining position against the U.S. and Germany in the steel industry, it wanted steel mills in India so it is did promise to purchase any surplus steel Tata could not otherwise sell. The Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO), now headed by his sonDorabji Tata (18591932), opened its plant at Jamshedpur in Bihar in 1908. It became the leading iron and steel producer in India, with 120,000 employees in 1945. TISCO became an India's proud symbol of technical skill, managerial competence, entrepreneurial flair, and high pay for industrial workers. Economic impact of British imperialism Debate continues about the economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue was actually raised by conservative British politician Edmund Burke who in the 1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998)

continues this line of reasoning, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of plunder and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India. (Economic Drain Theory) Ray believes that British depleted the food and money stocks and imposed high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal. P. J. Marshall, a British historian known for his work on the British empire, has a reinterpretation of the view that the prosperity of the formerly being Mughal rule gave way to poverty and anarchy. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. British control was delegated largely through regional rulers and was sustained by a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century, except the frequent famines with very high fatality rate(Famine in India). Marshall notes the British raised revenue through local tax administrators and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation. Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents a British nationalist interpretation in which the British were not in full control but instead were controllers in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their ability to keep power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians. Aftermath The newly independent but weak Union government's treasury reported annual revenue of 334 million in 1950. In contrast, Nizam Asaf Jah VII of south India was widely reported to have a fortune of almost 668 million then. About one-sixth of the national population were urban by 1950. A US Dollar was exchanged at 4.79 Rupees the British Economic Policies in India
Till 1757 the East India Company worked as a trading organization by selling Indian goods abroad. By that time Indian goods like textiles, spices, etc. had tremendous demand in European markets. Profit of the company depended on the volume of Indian goods carried and sold in European markets. Therefore, not only the British traders but also the European counterparts, attempted to find new markets for Indian goods. As a result, export of Indian goods increased and so also their production. Growth of foreign trade through European traders brought economic prosperity for the Indian rulers, manufacturers and people. Further, the East India Company tried to win the good will of the Indian rulers in order to continue trade and commerce. On the other hand, the rulers granted permission to the company for economic prosperity. Goodwill of the rulers and good behavior of the company resulted in the establishment of factories or trading centers in different parts of India. But subsequent political developments in India and also in Europe changed the relations between the Indian rulers and the company. After 1757 the company was put in an additional advantageous position due to its political control over Bengal. First the company found the revenues of Bengal as capital and invested it for export of Indian goods. Second, previously the relation of the company with the Indian manufacturers was determined by the nature of permission granted by the Indian rulers. After 1757, the company became the master and used its political power to dictate terms of trade with the Indian manufacturers. Specifically the weavers of Bengal were the worst affected class. They were forced to hire their labour to produce for the company at a price always profitable to the later. Gradually they were

compelled to work exclusively for the British and lost their freedom of labour. The weavers were prohibited to work for Indian merchants for a higher wage. Finally, the British trade policy drove the Indian as well as non- English merchants out of trade in India. On the other hand, the company officials had the exclusive trading right with the raw cotton at a price much higher than the actual one. Hence, the weavers of Bengal and India were worst affected both as seller and buyer by purchasing raw cotton at higher price and by selling textiles at a lower one. In both cases, prices were dictated by the British. At the same time, the Government in England vigorously pursued protective trade policy of survival of the British textiles and to keep Indian textiles out of competition. As a result of Industrial Revolution in England, production of machine made textiles was increasing and the Government of England was apprehensive of its survival in the market at the face of stiff competition from Indian quality products. Thus, the Government imposed heavy duties on Indian textiles entering into English market. The intention was clear to keep Indian textile products out of English market by making it costlier. In the meantime England had emerged as a great colonial power having overseas empires all over the world. Each overseas empire provided England with a monopoly foreign market. To meet the demands of those markets production expanded rapidly in the British industries by the use of latest technologies and machines. As a result, British economy flourished under colonial pattern of trade. Under this trade system, Britain told her manufactured goods to those colonies and in turn the colonies exported agricultural products and other raw materials for colonial trade. In the process, India became a market for the British industrial products and a rich field to supply raw materials. Also the industrial Revolution encouraged the emergence of a powerful class of manufacturers. This class had their influence on administration and politics of England. Very often the interests of this manufacturing industrial class were reflected in the national policies of Britain. This class was determined to curb the monopoly trade right of the East India Company. This class promoted industrial manufacture, not trade. Thus, the industrial manufacturing class influenced the Government in England for export for their products to overseas colonial markets and for imports of raw materials from colonies. They succeed in compelling the East India Company for annual export of their products to India even at a huge loss to the company. Finally, the activities of the Company were controlled by the Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt's India Act of 1784. The Company was subordinated to the British Parliament and India had to serve the interests of the ruling class. By the Charter Act of 1813, the trade monopoly of the Company in India is abolished. Indian trade is opened to all British people. However, trade with China and trade in tea were left under the Company's monopoly right. But after twenty years, the Charter Act of 1833 put an end to the Company's monopoly trade in tea and with China. By this time, Indian manufacturers were replaced by the British manufacturers and British industries flourished at the expense of Indian industries. From 1833 onwards free trade policy accelerated the process of converting "agricultural India to an economic colony of industrial England." Under this policy their remained no restriction on entry of British goods to India. More important was the unequal competition between Indian handicraft goods and British machine-products. In addition, England imposed heavy import duties on the Indian goods entering into the British market. Sometimes, the import duty was found four times more than the cost of production. While the value of the imports to India increased rapidly, foreign markets were closed for Indian goods due to imposition of heavy import duties.

By this time also the British had introduced certain changes in social and cultural life of Indians. Out look and attitude of Indians had changed to a great extent along with the taste for Western goods and British goods flooded Indian markets. With the expansion of the British Empire in India, new markets were opened for British goods. For all these reasons, British goods entered Indian market freely or on payment of nominal tariff. One result was inevitable; unfair competition between the machine - products of Britain and Indian handicrafts. Such competition closed all possibilities for survival of the latter. At last, India imported agricultural products like raw cotton, indigo, tea and food grains to meet the needs of the British industries as well as of the British merchants and flew out of India. Thus, the British economic policies transformed "India into a consumer of British manufacturers and a supplier of raw materials."